DETAILED ACTIONNotice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
Claims 1, 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Balasubramanian (US20220030612A1) hereinafter Balasubramanian.
Regarding Claim 1,
Balasubramanian teaches a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to ([0005] apparatus may include a processor, and memory coupled to the processor):
select sidelink resources for full duplex communication from among available sidelink resources (Fig. 4, [0037] method of wireless communications at a device that supports full-duplex communications in a wireless network ... performing a resource selection procedure based on determining that the first set of time-frequency resources and the second set of time-frequency resources);
and communicate in full duplex using the selected sidelink resources (Fig. 4, [0037] method of wireless communications at a device that supports full-duplex communications in a wireless network ... performing a resource selection procedure based on determining that the first set of time-frequency resources and the second set of time-frequency resources at least partially overlap ...[0158] the full-duplex UE 115-d may select ... for the reservation or may select ... for the first subsequent data channel transmission...).
Regarding Claim 2,
Balasubramanian teaches the UE of claim 1,
Balasubramanian further teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to sense for the available sidelink resources from among candidate sidelink resources that include scheduled sidelink resources already scheduled for transmission or reception by the UE ([0137] A full-duplex UE 115 may concurrently transmit with and reserve the same future resources for subsequent transmission as a half-duplex UE 115 or another full-duplex UE 115, and [0184] The full-duplex resource selection manager 735 may perform a resource selection procedure based on determining that the first set of time-frequency resources and the second set of time-frequency resources at least partially overlap).
Regarding Claim 8,
Balasubramanian teaches the UE of claim 1,
Balasubramanian further teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive an indication of available sidelink resources ([0030] The processor and memory may also be configured to receive, from a second device, an indication that the first set of time-frequency resources at least partially overlaps with a second set of time-frequency resources reserved by the second device),
and wherein the one or more processors, to select the sidelink resources, are configured to select the sidelink resources for full duplex communication from among the available sidelink resources and from among scheduled sidelink resources that are already scheduled for transmission or reception by the UE ([0137] A full-duplex UE 115 may concurrently transmit with and reserve the same future resources for subsequent transmission as a half-duplex UE 115 or another full-duplex UE 115, and [0184] The full-duplex resource selection manager 735 may perform a resource selection procedure based on determining that the first set of time-frequency resources and the second set of time-frequency resources at least partially overlap).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian and in view of Kazmi (US 20180212746 A1), hereinafter Kazmi.
Regarding Claim 3,
Balasubramanian teaches the UE of claim 2,
Balasubramanian doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive a configuration for full duplex communication, wherein communicating in full duplex includes communicating in full duplex based at least in part on the configuration
Kazmi teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive a configuration for full duplex communication, wherein communicating in full duplex includes communicating in full duplex based at least in part on the configuration ([0019] method of determining a mode of operation for a wireless terminal ... comprises determining a full duplex or half duplex mode of operation based on the parameter).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Kazmi to the teaching of Balasubramanian. The motivation for such an addition would be to select a mode to operate effectively ([0119] Kazmi).
Regarding Claim 4,
Balasubramanian and Kazmi teach the UE of claim 3,
Balasubramanian further teaches wherein the configuration indicates whether full duplex communication is to be performed in slots of the selected sidelink resources or in a whole sensing window ([0014] the indication may be transmitted during a period of time in which the second device may be operating in a receive mode. ... [0035] the indication indicates physical resource blocks or time slots, or both... [0037] wireless communications at a device that supports full-duplex communications in a wireless network) and ([0085] UE may transmit during a first time period (e.g., during a set of one or more communication resources in time) and may reserve a number of resources for a second time period (e.g., in a number of future time slots) for a subsequent transmission).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian in view of Hosseini (US 20220046603 A1) hereinafter Hosseini.
Regarding Claim 5,
Balasubramanian teaches the UE of claim 2,
Balasubramanian doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to: select preferred sidelink resources for reception from among the available sidelink resources; and transmit an indication of the preferred sidelink resources in an inter-UE coordination message
Hosseini teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to: select preferred sidelink resources for reception from among the available sidelink resources; and transmit an indication of the preferred sidelink resources in an inter-UE coordination message ([0061] the first UE may request an inter-UE coordination report from the second UE. The inter-UE coordination report may include a set of sidelink resources available (e.g., preferred) for a resource allocation, a set of sidelink resources not preferred for a resource allocation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Hosseini to the teaching of Balasubramanian. The motivation for such an addition would be to reduce collisions between the first UE and the second UE ([0059] Hosseini).
Regarding Claim 6,
Balasubramanian teaches the UE of claim 2,
Balasubramanian does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to: select non-preferred sidelink resources, from a set of received sidelink resources, that are not available sidelink resources and that are not among time resources for which transmission is available with full duplex communication; and transmit an indication of the non-preferred sidelink resources in an inter-UE coordination message.
Hosseini teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to: select non-preferred sidelink resources, from a set of received sidelink resources, that are not available sidelink resources and that are not among time resources for which transmission is available with full duplex communication; and transmit an indication of the non-preferred sidelink resources in an inter-UE coordination message. ([0059] a first UE (e.g., UE120a) exchanges inter-UE coordination signaling with a second UE ... the first UE may determine a set of sidelink resources available for a resource allocation…., the second UE may perform the transmission accounting for the coordination information (e.g., via a sidelink resource indicated by the inter-UE coordination message, and/or the like). Inter-UE coordination signaling can also be used to indicate resources that are not preferred for a transmission by the second UE. [0060] A first UE may transmit a request for inter-UE coordination to a second UE. …the first UE may request an inter-UE coordination report from the second UE. The inter-UE coordination report may … a set of sidelink resources not preferred for a resource allocation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Hosseini to the teaching of Balasubramanian. The motivation for such an addition would be to reduce collisions between the first UE and the second UE ([0059] Hosseini).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian in view of Ganesan (US 20240057121 A1) Ganesan.
Regarding Claim 7,
Balasubramanian teaches the UE of claim 2,
Balasubramanian doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to select conflicted sidelink resources that conflict with other sidelink resources and that are not among time resources for which transmission is available with full duplex communication; and transmit an indication of the conflicted sidelink resources in an inter-UE coordination message.
Ganesan teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to select conflicted sidelink resources that conflict with other sidelink resources and that are not among time resources for which transmission is available with full duplex communication; and transmit an indication of the conflicted sidelink resources in an inter-UE coordination message ([0071] to enhance Inter-UE coordination, the peer UE behavior is modified to indicate a sidelink resource conflict ... [0085] In one embodiment, the resource conflict may be a time-domain collision (half-duplex problem)... [0164] The processor 605 determines whether there is a resource conflict, said resource conflict including an expected collision on the future resources).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Ganesan to the teaching of Balasubramanian. The motivation for such an addition would be to indicate slidelink resources conflict ([0002] Ganesan).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian in view of Huang (US 20220400492 A1) hereinafter Huang. WO 2021047285 A1 (US 20220400492 A1 is the US equivalent to WO 2021047285 A1 ) has a publication date of 2021-03-18. The US equivalent publication will be referred to herein for the purpose of mapping due to a clearer translation.
Regarding Claim 9,
Balasubramanian teaches the UE of claim 1,
Balasubramanian doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors, to communicate in full duplex, are configured to: transmit a first sidelink communication and receiving a second sidelink communication in a same time resource, or transmit or receive a sidelink communication and transmit or receive an access link communication in the same time resource.
Huang teaches wherein the one or more processors, to communicate in full duplex, are configured to: transmit a first sidelink communication and receiving a second sidelink communication in a same time resource, or transmit or receive a sidelink communication and transmit or receive an access link communication in the same time resource ([0129] a full-duplex UE 115-b may transmit (e.g., broadcast) one or more interference notification signals 225, which may or may not include a transmission concurrently with receiving the first sidelink transmission 210 from the UE 115-a (e.g., using the same time resources, in a full duplex operation)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Huang to the teaching of Balasubramanian. The motivation for such an addition would be to increase communications system throughput ([0073)] Huang).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian in view of Su (US20180026777A1) hereinafter Su.
Regarding Claim 10,
Balasubramanian teaches the UE of claim 1,
Balasubramanian doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine to use full duplex communication based at least in part on one or more of a traffic condition, a channel condition, or a UE capability for full duplex communication.
Su teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine to use full duplex communication based at least in part on one or more of a traffic condition, a channel condition, or a UE capability for full duplex communication ([0088] UE may autonomously select either the full-duplex or half-duplex configurations (TX or RX or both) based on current conditions, including current channel conditions).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Su to the teaching of Balasubramanian. The motivation for such an addition would be to enable a UE, that may be link budget limited, to autonomously select between full-duplex and half-duplex operations ([0007] Su).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian in view of Choi (US 20090296609 A1) hereinafter Choi.
Balasubramanian teaches the UE of claim 1,
Balasubramanian doesn’t explicitly teach where is in the one or more processors are configured to disable a half-duplex check condition based at least in part on a higher layer parameter.
Choi teaches where is in the one or more processors are configured to disable a half-duplex check condition based at least in part on a higher layer parameter ([0110] RRC determines that the peak data rate required by the UE cannot be provided in a half-duplex FDD mode; a trigger event (in the form of a signal message) will tell the RRC and/or the UE that a higher quality of service mode (such as the aforementioned full-duplex FDD mode) is needed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Choi to the teaching of Balasubramanian. The motivation for such an addition would be to optimize or simply modify the current transceiver operation ([0110] Choice).
Claims 12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian in view of Zhou (US 20210028891 A1), hereinafter Zhou.
Balasubramanian teaches the UE of claim 1,
Balasubramanian doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors, to communicate in full duplex, are configured to select, based at least in part on a transmission priority, a set of transmit channels or reference signals (RSs) from among overlapping-in-time transmit channels or RSs to other UEs; select, based at least in part on a reception priority, a set of receive channels or RSs from among overlapping-in-time receive channels or RSs from other UEs; and transmit one or more first communications on the selected set of transmit channels or RSs and receiving one or more second communications on the selected set of receive channels or RSs in a same time resource.
Zhou teaches wherein the one or more processors, to communicate in full duplex, are configured to select, based at least in part on a transmission priority, a set of transmit channels or reference signals (RSs) from among overlapping-in-time transmit channels or RSs to other UEs; select, based at least in part on a reception priority, a set of receive channels or RSs from among overlapping-in-time receive channels or RSs from other UEs; and transmit one or more first communications on the selected set of transmit channels or RSs and receiving one or more second communications on the selected set of receive channels or RSs in a same time resource ([0491] Solutions to this collision include at least one of: according to predetermined conditions ....transmitting and/or receiving N un-dropped transmissions among the collided transmissions ... the predetermined conditions include at least one of the following ...priority of the channel of transmission (such as the priorities of the downlink channel, the uplink channel, the sidelink channel, and further such as specific priorities of uplink/downlink/sidelink channels of PUCCH, PUSCH, PDCCH, PSSCH) ... and the duplex capability of the UE (such as half-duplex/full-duplex)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Zhou to the teaching of Balasubramanian. The motivation for such an addition would be to improve sidelink transmission (Zhou ([0077])).
Regarding Claim 16
Balasubramanian and Zhou teach the UE of claim 12,
Balasubramanian doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the transmission priority or the reception priority based at least in part on a scheduling message, an activating message, a configuration message, or a priority of a prior transmission associated with the transmission.
Zhou teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the transmission priority or the reception priority based at least in part on a scheduling message, an activating message, a configuration message, or a priority of a prior transmission associated with the transmission ([0390] the sidelink transmission request may be a Scheduling Request ... The sidelink request carries related information of the sidelink transmission, such as a priority of sidelink data)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Zhou to the teaching of Balasubramanian. The motivation for such an addition would be to improve sidelink transmission (Zhou [0077]).
Regarding Claim 17
Balasubramanian and Zhou teach the UE of claim 12,
Balasubramanian does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the transmission priority or the reception priority based at least in part on a rule specified in stored configuration information.
Zhou teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to determine the transmission priority or the reception priority based at least in part on a rule specified in stored configuration information ([0491] the predetermined conditions include at least one of the following ...priority of the channel of transmission).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Zhou to the teaching of Balasubramanian. The motivation for such an addition would be to improve sidelink transmission (Zhou [0077]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian and Zhou further in view of Celebi (US 20150109969 A1) hereinafter Celebi.
Regarding Claim 13
Balasubramanian and Zhou teach the UE of claim 12,
Balasubramanian and Zhou don’t explicitly teach wherein a radio access technology (RAT) of the set of transmit channels or RSs and a RAT of the set of receive channels or RSs are different.
Celebi teaches wherein a radio access technology (RAT) of the set of transmit channels or RSs and a RAT of the set of receive channels or RSs are different. (see “FD” as “full duplex”) ([0076] where concurrent DL and UL communication is scheduled in the FD portions 142 .... In some aspects, in the concurrent DL and UL communication, the DL communication is in a first RAT and the UL communication is in a second RAT different than the first RAT).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Celebi to the teaching of Balasubramanian and Zhou. The motivation for such an addition would to improve the overall network capacity ([0023] Celebi).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian in view of Zhou and further in view of Wu (US 20200008091 A1) hereinafter Wu91.
Regarding Claim 14
Balasubramanian and Zhou teach the UE of claim 12,
Balasubramanian and Zhou don’t explicitly teach wherein a type of the set of transmit channels and a type of the set of receive channels or RSs are the same.
Wu91 teaches wherein a type of the set of transmit channels and a type of the set of receive channels or RSs are the same ([0068] base station may send a resource configuration of a same type of reference signal to the terminal device that is in an uplink transmitting state or a downlink receiving state, for example, a resource configuration of the CSI-RS or a resource configuration of the SRS. In performing inter-UE interference measurement, a resource of a same type of reference signal is configured for a terminal device that transmits a measurement signal in the interference measurement and a terminal device that performs the interference measurement [0090]. The embodiments of this application are also applicable to other communications systems, such as a sidelink system).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Wu91 to the teaching of Balasubramanian and Zhou. The motivation for such an addition would be to improve accuracy of measurement of inter-UE interference ([0068] Wu91).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian in view of Zhou and further in view of Luo (US 20200396718 A1) hereinafter Luo.
Regarding Claim 15
Balasubramanian and Zhou teach the UE of claim 12,
Balasubramanian and Zhou don’t explicitly teach wherein a link type of the set of transmit channels or RSs and a link type of the set of receive channels or RSs are different.
Luo teaches wherein a link type of the set of transmit channels or RSs and a link type of the set of receive channels or RSs are different ([0083] UE with partial full-duplex capabilities may be capable of simultaneous transmission and reception subject to certain constraints… simultaneous transmission and reception both be on side-links, or that transmission be on side-link while reception is on access-link, or vice-versa).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Luo to the teaching of Balasubramanian and Zhou. The motivation for such an addition would to allow for efficient resource utilization ([0060] Luo).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian further in view of Ye (US20220322360A1) hereinafter Ye.
Regarding Claim 18
Balasubramanian teaches the UE of claim 1,
Balasubramanian doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive an inter-UE coordination (IUC) message, and wherein the one or more processors, to select the sidelink resources, are configured to select the sidelink resources for full duplex communication further based at least in part on the IUC message.
Ye teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive an inter-UE coordination (IUC) message, and wherein the one or more processors, to select the sidelink resources, are configured to select the sidelink resources for full duplex communication further based at least in part on the IUC message (abstract, UE may be configured to select resources for sidelink communications based on the set of resources indicated in the inter-UE coordination message).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Ye to the teaching of Balasubramanian. The motivation for such an addition would to improve medium utilization efficiency ([0115] Ye).
Regarding Claim 19
Balasubramanian and Ye teach the UE of claim 18,
Balasubramanian doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the IUC message indicates preferred sidelink resources for another UE, and wherein the one or more processors, to select the sidelink resources, are configured to select the sidelink resources for full duplex communication further based at least in part on the preferred sidelink resources for the other UE.
Ye teaches wherein the IUC message indicates preferred sidelink resources for another UE, and wherein the one or more processors, to select the sidelink resources, are configured to select the sidelink resources for full duplex communication further based at least in part on the preferred sidelink resources for the other UE (Abstract, A UE may receive, from a first UE, an inter-UE coordination message. The inter-UE coordination message may include an indication of a set of resources and an indication of whether the set of resources are preferred resources or non-preferred resources. The UE may be configured to select resources for sidelink communications based on the set of resources indicated in the inter-UE coordination message).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Ye to the teaching of Balasubramanian. The motivation for such an addition would to improve medium utilization efficiency ([0115] Ye).
Regarding Claim 20,
Balasubramanian and Ye teach the UE of claim 18,
Balasubramanian doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the IUC message indicates non-preferred sidelink resources or conflicted resources for another UE, and wherein the one or more processors, to select the sidelink resources, are configured to select the sidelink resources for full duplex communication further based at least in part on the non-preferred sidelink resources or the conflicted resources for the other UE.
Ye teaches wherein the IUC message indicates non-preferred sidelink resources or conflicted resources for another UE, and wherein the one or more processors, to select the sidelink resources, are configured to select the sidelink resources for full duplex communication further based at least in part on the non-preferred sidelink resources or the conflicted resources for the other UE (Abstract, Apparatuses, systems, and methods for utilization of an inter-UE coordination message. A UE may receive, from a first UE, an inter-UE coordination message. The inter-UE coordination message may include an indication of a set of resources and an indication of whether the set of resources are preferred resources or non-preferred resources. The UE may be configured to select resources for sidelink communications based on the set of resources indicated in the inter-UE coordination message. The UE may perform differing selection processes based on the set of resources indicated in the inter-UE coordination message. The UE may perform a first process and/or set of processes when the set of resources are indicated as non-preferred and a second process and/or set of processes when the set of resources are indicated as preferred).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teaching of Ye to the teaching of Balasubramanian. The motivation for such an addition would to improve medium utilization efficiency ([0115] Ye).
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAN T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6178. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM (EST). Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ayman A Abaza can be reached at (571) 270-0422. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VAN TA NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2465 /AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465